R.E. Dietz Corporation v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[s]ection 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 9 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s 10 requirement of indigency”
• requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 6 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”
• requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 9 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”
• impressions of IRS employees are not relevant to the judicial determination of a tax liability
• \The factual and legal analysis employed by the Commissioner is of no consequence to the district court.\
• “Ordinarily, in an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).